posted at 10:41 am on September 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today, I wrote a review of President Obama’s speech, which was hardly complimentary. Other reviews make it look positively warm in comparison. Take for instance this long and pointed criticism from John Harris at Politico, which frames the speech as coming from two different Obamas and then concludes with by calling the entire effort “disingenuous”:

Two weeks of zig-zag foreign policy by President Barack Obama — marching to war one moment, clinging desperately to diplomacy the next — culminated Tuesday night, appropriately enough, in a zig-zag address to the nation that did little to clarify what will come next in the Syria crisis but shined a glaring hot light on the debate in the president’s own mind. …

Zag finished the sentence with a jeering reminder: “But chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.”

Zig noted that recent diplomatic activity is at least tentatively promising, thanks to “constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitting that it has these weapons and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.”

This led to perhaps the most disingenuous line uttered by either Zig or Zag in the 16-minute speech, with the president claiming that he had asked Congress to postpone the vote that he earlier requested authorizing use of military force in Syria in order to let the latest diplomatic moves play out. But just a minute earlier he had asserted that a main reason diplomacy was gaining traction was because of the “credible threat of U.S. military action.” Presumably, any further diplomacy would be even more effective if Congress sent a message that it was giving Obama all options to act if the talks fail. The more plausible rationale for congressional delay is that the administration would lose the vote if it took place now.

OBAMA: “We know the Assad regime was responsible…. The facts cannot be denied.”

THE FACTS: The Obama administration has not laid out proof Assad was behind the attack.

The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.

Administration officials have not shared the satellite imagery they say shows rockets and artillery fire leaving government-held areas and landing in 12 rebel-held neighborhoods outside Damascus where chemical attacks were reported. Nor have they shared transcripts of the Syrian officials allegedly warning units to ready gas masks or discussing how to handle U.N. investigators after it happened.

The White House has declined to explain where it came up with the figure of at least 1,429 dead, including 400 children — a figure far higher than estimates by nongovernmental agencies such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has counted only victims identified by name, with a current total of 502. In his remarks, Obama more generally accused Assad’s forces of gassing to death “over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.”

That’s actually what many Americans would have expected last night — an accounting of the proof that the administration claims to have. Even an explanation of how the proof was assembled and how it relates directly to the Syrian military would have been helpful, especially with Obama making a public case for military action on prime time. Members of Congress have been briefed on the proof, but those briefings are convincing more lawmakers to oppose military action than support it, which may be why the White House hasn’t bothered to share more of the evidence with the public.

It may turn out that the Russian proposal gives Obama, and the United States, a face-saving way out of an unwanted conflict. It may even be that the possibility of a U.S. attack spurred the Russians and Syrians to act. But it feels as if the ship of state is bobbing like a cork in international waters. This was to be the week the president rallied lawmakers and the public around military action. But in a series of TV interviews Monday and in Tuesday night’s address, he instead explained why any such action is on hold.

Obama’s leadership, particularly in his second term, can most charitably be described as subtle. But he is so subtle that he sometimes appears to be a bystander. He left immigration up to Congress, which put the issue on ice. Congress also buried gun control and efforts to replace the sequester. Obama, meantime, has been reacting to events — Egypt, the National Security Agency revelations — rather than shaping them. He launched a fresh push to sell Americans on the merits of Obamacare — yet more than 4 in 10 remain unaware that the law is still on the books. …

Obama joined in Tuesday night, saying the Russian proposal came in part from “constrictive talks that I had” with Vladi­mir Putin. Obama said, “This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.”

Yet moments earlier, Obama told Americans that he decided “it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.”

Which one is it? Ask again in a couple of days.

The Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner called the speech “an incoherent mess,” and suggested that Obama has surpassed Jimmy Carter as the most feckless US President in foreign policy:

Billed as a game-changer on Syria, the President’s White House addresslanded with a thud that could be heard as far away as Damascus. Barack Obama has a huge credibility problem on Syria and on foreign policy in general, and Tuesday night’s speech will do nothing to help that. As Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer put it on Fox News, it was “one of the most odd presidential speeches ever delivered,” with no clear-cut strategy laid out, while urging Congress to delay a vote on the use of force against Assad’s regime.

In effect, Obama farmed out US foreign policy in the Middle East yet again to the Russians, appealing for time to consider the Russian proposal for securing Syria’s chemical weapons, a ruse described accurately by the Telegraph’s Con Coughlin as “a massive red herring.”He also used his address to take swipes at the Bush Administration over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which it should be noted, were waged with the backing of Congress and the American people, as well as large international coalitions on a scale that the Obama administration can only dream of. …

In essence, and this was amply displayed tonight, Barack Obama has no big picture strategy on Syria, or the wider Middle East, and is bereft of a clear game plan. His speech was also a sea of contradictions. He talked about deploying American military might but has no intention of delivering a decisive blow. He paid lip service to the ideal of American exceptionalism, but is happy to kowtow to Moscow. He urged Congress to support his approach, but wants them to wait before they vote. For these were the words of an exceptionally weak and indecisive president, one who seems to be making up policy on the hoof, as he stumbles and bumbles along on the world stage, with his hapless Secretary of State in tow.

How different to the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan, a man who led the world’s superpower with strength and conviction. The Gipper knew the meaning of American leadership, especially at times of crisis. Unfortunately President Obama can only dream of holding a candle to Reagan’s achievements, and at present is even outperforming Jimmy Carter as the most feeble US president of modern times.

If fully implemented in dozens of sites throughout Syria, this effort to secure the chemical weapons would amount to a cease-fire, with a large U.N. peacekeeping force deployed. In the best of circumstances, this could lead to convening the Geneva peace conference, perhaps including Iran, that could end the conflict.

Some have predicted catastrophic consequences to the credibility of President Obama and our country if Congress were to reject his request for approval of military action against the Assad regime in Syria. These dire predictions are exaggerated.

Hey, at least Carter’s coherent. Maureen Dowd complains that it’s amateur hour at the White House, but Obama’s current predicament is the fault of … guess who?

Now, when it is clear Obama can’t convince Congress, the American public, his own wife, the world, Liz Cheney or even Donald “Shock and Awe” Rumsfeld to bomb Syria — just a teensy-weensy bit — Pooty-Poot (as W. called him) rides, shirtless, to the rescue, offering him a face-saving way out? If it were a movie, we’d know it was a trick. We can’t trust the soulless Putin — his Botox has given the former K.G.B. officer even more of a poker face — or the heartless Bashar al-Assad. By Tuesday, Putin the Peacemaker was already setting conditions.

Just as Obama and Kerry — with assists from Hillary and some senators — were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed. The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.

Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about “a red line for us” — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.

Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified. Once again, as with gun control and other issues, he had not done the groundwork necessary to line up support. The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over “every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community” and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an “unbelievably small” effort.

So it’s Obama’s fault, right? After all, he’s been in office for four-plus years and quarterbacked the surge in Afghanistan. Not really, Dowd argues, because that darned George W. Bush ruined interventionism for everyone:

Obama cried over the children of Newtown. He is stricken, as he said in his address Tuesday, by “images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor” from “poison gas.” He thought — or thought he thought — that avenging the gassing was the right thing to do. But W., once more haunting his successor’s presidency, drained credibility, coffers and compassion.

While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster, they recoil at the Middle East now; they’ve had it with Shiites vs. Sunnis, with Alawites and all the ancient hatreds. Kerry can bluster that “we’re not waiting for long” for Assad to cough up the weapons, but it will be hard for him to back it up, given that a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicates that Joe Sixpack is now a peacenik; in 2005, 60 percent of Republicans agreed with W. that America should foster democracy in the world; now only 19 percent of Republicans believe it.

Well, Dowd wrote a passably realistic half of a column, which is half more than we usually see.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

So, on this day of all days, you’re suggesting that going into Afghanistan after the 9/11/01 atrocities was the wrong course of action? Just what you have done on 9/12/01 were you GWB? Write a sternly-worded letter?

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Is that what I suggested? Show me where I suggested that. I’ll wait. I’m merely following up on the op-ed that started this narrative by saying that the idea of intervening in other countries’ problems has become unstable political ground for politicians because of the widespread politicization of the conflicts of the past decade, which is hard to deny, looking at the responses from many on the right who supported going into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, dear, you are a funny American. So isolationism and opposition to intervention started with Bush? Not even Hitler was bad enough for you to step up to. Go ahead, look it up and see how much support there was in the States to intervene in Europe at that time.

Carter lived long enough to be resurrected by obama. He is a lucky old man.

Schadenfreude on September 11, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Resurrected?

Not hardly. He was only surpassed by another more naive, incompetent, and feckless than he was in his efforts towards governing this country. Carter remains the 2nd worst President of the last 100 years – and 3rd worst of all time.

The biggest difference between 1979-1980 and today – the lamestream media is far more locked into their ideological loyalty towards supporting Barack Obama than they were with Carter.

But it’s only a matter of time before they find themselves with the choice of either blaming Barack Obama’s incompetence or being forced to acknowledge the bankruptcy of the progressive agenda. No one is buying this ‘Blame Bush’ refrain 5+ years later.

Worth noting a contrast can only be drawn by equating a full scale ground invasion with a limited missile strike.
Which for me means there is no comparison.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Again, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, Libya has worked out so well.

If anything, Obama’s speech was pretty clear as to what the objective was. Is your position is that because they are in the middle of a civil war, Assad should be allowed to gas civilians with impunity?

It may turn out that the Russian proposal gives Obama, and the United States, a face-saving way out of an unwanted conflict.

Face saving for Obama – not the United States. Obama does not like the United States. He feels that it was founded illegitimately. What is good for Obama is not good for the US. Obama is controlled by his Saudi Masters. Get with it.

Did you read the FP link?
Assad has been angling for and now has the right and cons advocating for just what he wants – for the rebels to be left unsupported and for his army to be free to attack civilians with impunity.
I suppose you could say calling that ‘supporting Assad’ goes too far.
But maybe that’s just parsing a wink from a nod.

Did the Syrian high command tell its troops to put on gas masks during a sarin attack? If that is what the admin is claiming then either they are liars or the Syrian Army is dumber than Lindsay Loan. Gas masks offer zero protection against sarin which is absorbed through the skin and requires MOPP suits for full protection.

verbie, you should never use words like “shrivel”. It’s what the left is all about. Just look at your ‘leader’.

Schadenfreude on September 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM

No. It seems you don’t know what the left is about at all. You should read some Hitchens some time.
But your side knows all about using words…like ‘exceptionalism’.
as long as your not called to give them meaning.

But your side knows all about using words…like ‘exceptionalism’.
as long as your not called to give them meaning.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM

LOL. Go back to burning American flags, you despicable, lying scumbag. Syrian civilians are not our problem and not our concern. If you care so much about them then go to Syria. Otherwise, STFU. American interests are not served by helping the tsunami of pan-islamism spread through the arab world. Of course, we all know that you and yours – and your Indonesian Dog-Eating Retard – are only about harming American interests, as you have been all through the years.

Did you read the FP link?
Assad has been angling for and now has the right and cons advocating for just what he wants – for the rebels to be left unsupported and for his army to be free to attack civilians with impunity.
I suppose you could say calling that ‘supporting Assad’ goes too far.
But maybe that’s just parsing a wink from a nod.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Actually ROFLMAO. An opinion piece by a libtard in FP. And that’s the authoritative analysis. You’re such an ignorant little toadie.

If you’re so worried about your al queda friends…I’ll chip in some money for airfare so you can go join them. Until then GFY.

Isn’t it interesting that with all of the actions taken by the American left regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria, one word is practically never used…. VICTORY.

Where / how does Barack Obama not only define VICTORY but lay out the process to achieve VICTORY?

It doesn’t come from a ‘symbolic’ strike. Or a ‘shot across the bow’. Not even from an ‘unbelievably small strike’ that is intended to be ‘not decisive’. There is no mention of regime change – even though Obama demanded it in 2011.

There is no mention of what will happen in Syria if Assad falls – and the jihadists take over, gaining Syria’s massive stocks of chemical and biological weapons. Or the regional escalation that could take place if Iran follows through on it’s threats, on the US, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. How about a realistic look at the actions of Russia – the country that has armed Syria for the last 55 years and not only seeks to maintain it’s military base in Syria, but likely has thousands of troops and advisors assisting the Assad military and could be casualties in any US strike? What is the message that will be sent after 100 Tomahawks hit Syria, kill civilians placed as human shields, and we all watch Assad exit his bunker in triumph after the last missile landed?

And where is this international coalition? The American left downplayed and ridiculed the 40 nation coalition Bush 43 built to end Saddam’s regime – but outside a few Gulf States actively pumping funds and arms into the Syrian rebels – where is the rest of the international community and their collective outrage?

Just how is this about ‘justice’ or ‘humanitarianism’ and not about salving Obama’s ego as his hubris is exposed by nemesis? That is foreign policy is not only naive, but feckless and weak?

‘…As dedicated as they are to opposing whatever Obama might support, in this case their desperation to rationalize that position has them parroting b.s. Russian propaganda that Assad didn’t use these weapons. (At least they’re not still doubting he has them – but only because Assad only now admits that.)’

Associated Press destroyed Obama’s claims in his speech about ‘we KNOW that Assad used chemical weapons.’ We know nothing of the sort. We know that there is conflicting information from the GERMANS, as well as others. We KNOW that even stalwart Democrats have said that they are unconvinced by the evidence and Congressman Alan Grayson has accused the Administration of ‘manipulating the evidence’ to bolster support for Syrian strikes.

Perhaps you weren’t a member of the Bush/Cheney apology choir during the time they were actually (not hypothetically)subverting the constitution. Maybe you expressed your disgust at the legal reasoning of John Yoo. Maybe you weren’t out there making ‘ticking bomb’ arguments in support of torture. Maybe you were outraged by the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping.
But maybe, like so many here, you were a full throated cheerleader then?

As dedicated as they are to opposing whatever Obama might support, in this case their desperation to rationalize that position has them parroting b.s. Russian propaganda that Assad didn’t use these weapons. (At least they’re not still doubting he has them – but only because Assad only now admits that.)’

– verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Assad has NOT admitted using chemical weapons on ANYONE.

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 3:24 PM

What I wrote was:
At least they’re not still doubting he has them – but only because Assad only now admits that.

“Thanks to Pres. Obama’s strength,” tweeted House Democratic honcho Nancy Pelosi, “we have a Russian proposal.” The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted, “Kind of amazed I’m saying this, but the White House may really be about to win on Syria.”

Ah, yes, winning. Which is to say, being humiliated, acting weak, behaving in vacillatory fashion, making a mockery of your office, destroying your country’s credibility, making your own words look desperately foolish, and ceding foreign policy to the Machiavellian machinations of a gangster regime in Moscow.

That’s what you call “winning” when what you mean by “winning” is “losing.”

So, on this day of all days, you’re suggesting that going into Afghanistan after the 9/11/01 atrocities was the wrong course of action? Just what you have done on 9/12/01 were you GWB? Write a sternly-worded letter?

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 11:27 AM

In a word, YES. We should have simply made Afghanistan a level parking lot via nuclear strikes. 3 objectives fulfilled in one feel swoop:

1. Destroy and punish the enemy.

2. Make them remember for a long time (Japan anyone?)

3. No further loss of American lives.

Same process in Iraq, BTW. With a further warning to Iran and Syria that any new terrorist act ANYWHERE in the world will lead to annihilation of their state capitals.

So, actually 4 objectives reached in 1 hour flat.

What we have been facing since with the rapid spread of radical islam is the failure of Bush admin to do the above.

But you didn’t give reviews from dhimocrapt/marxist/ libruls. They are going to transcribe it and put it in the Bible as the fifth book of the Gospels. They are going to enscribe it on the entrance of the Supreme court. The NYT will excerpt it on their masthead (All the obama that is fit to print). I heard from some of them that they will use it as an enscription for obama when his image is placed on Mount Rushmore. It will be embedded in the Christian Liturgy: A new Doxology – Praise obama from whom all blessings flow, praise him …

But it’s only a matter of time before they find themselves with the choice of either blaming Barack Obama’s incompetence or being forced to acknowledge the bankruptcy of the progressive agenda. No one is buying this ‘Blame Bush’ refrain 5+ years later.

Athos on September 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

There is no way you’re this naive.

They will never make such a choice. They will never acknowledge either of those options.

Did you read the FP link?
Assad has been angling for and now has the right and cons advocating for just what he wants – for the rebels to be left unsupported and for his army to be free to attack civilians with impunity.
I suppose you could say calling that ‘supporting Assad’ goes too far.
But maybe that’s just parsing a wink from a nod.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Did you write the FP piece?

If not then you get to name who you believe is mouthing the Regime’s line.

The key to this conundrum is the relationship between the administration and the government of Turkey. They were the last foreign officials to meet with Chris Stevens in Benghazi and there seem to be multiple reports that there was an arms delivery deal to Syrian rebels going on there that is still being reported today as “CIA arming Syrian rebels”. Apparently, Benghazi can’t be revealed because its still in process.

As for Turkey, Erdowan has been a constant irritant to ME stability and their position in NATO and the EEC should be questioned since they are on track to theocracy.

Russia has no love for these stone-age monsters, so smart-power would be on the same side on this issue.

Nobody can explain the romantic attraction that exists between 60s leftists and the “clean and articulate” PLO or the well-groomed Brotherhood face of islamofascist jihad wild beards.

As we saw, Obama cannot explain his policy at all. Does he know what it is?